Earn NeatoPoints!   Hello, !   (logout) sign up | login
≡

Art or Vandalism?

•

A deviant artist nicknamed ULiveandYouBurn turned roadside traffic safety barrels into monsters and alligators, but is it art or vandalism?

Sometimes there’s a fine line between art and vandalism. Blurring that line is Raleigh, North Carolina-based ULiveandYouBurn (nickname used to protect his identity). Part Urban Explorer, part fine-art photographer and social critic, ULiveandYouBurn is constantly pushing the boundaries of acceptable art.

As an Urban Explorer, he’s traveled into many closed-off areas including construction sites, abandoned buildings, and mine shafts, and he’s climbed his share of dizzying construction cranes.

http://www.divinecaroline.com/22344/76084-barrel-monster-uliveandyouburn

From the Upcoming ueue, submitted by StigNordas.


no fine line here...
When it involves altering somebody else's property in a permanent way I really can't see it not being considered vandalism.

That being said, I don't think art and vandalism are mutually exclusive.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Very creative, but I'm afraid if he used perfectly good private, state or city property - it's vandalism. On the other hand - I'm sure something like this could be funded or permission could be sought to make use of damaged cones and barriers in a way like this, rather than throw them away.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Vandalism is just one of the mediums that he/she is using for his/her art. Or maybe it would be more appropriate to say that vandalism is one of his/hers techniques. The expression or statement the artist is trying to make would not be the same if the material was gained in any other fashion (bought or donated).
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Vandalism period. Im sick and tired of "artists" who think they have a right to do "art" with anything they want. Your idea or meaning you want to convey means nothing. Especially when you use other peoples stuff to make it.

I dont think artist is the right term for these people; I prefer douchebag.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Its possible to create art without destroying something that belongs to someone else (or communal property). Why not choose that?

I think the destruction is used for attracting attention the artist otherwise isn't able to earn.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
horned_one24 wrote:

"I dont think artist is the right term for these people; I prefer douchebag."

If that's the case then I think there are too many artists in politics these days.

@Sam Saturday

Yes, it is about attracting attention. Things are put up where they are not supposed to be in order to draw attention. If something is supposed to be there it gets a glance and an "Oh, isn't that nice." instead of a "Huh, WTF, LOL!"
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Gauldar:

Yes, art is about attracting attention - but I question the artist's ability to attract attention through conventional means, or if he is only able to achieve it by pulling stunts.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
There is the added benefit that the "artist" in these instances doesn't have to buy his own supplies like the rest of the creative suckers.

How neat?!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
it would be acceptable if he purchased his own cones or construction equipment with his own money and did what he wanted with it. otherwise it is vandalism. that was easy.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
in 2002 'a guy I know' used a sampled clip from Blade2 (that was found online BEFORE the film was released) - he inserted it into his film 'The Infringement' (which was already 95% finished and featured the same actor that was sampled from Blade2) and then he released his film online, the same day that Blade2 was released in cinemas, in a statement against DRM, DMCA, etc.
(no purchase required, and no affect on the original film's release)
is it art or is he a vandal? http://www.vimeo.com/2170544
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
According to our local paper (I live in Raleigh near NCSU) Joe Carnevale has offered to pay for the traffic barrels, which belonged to a contractor working on Hillsborough Street. If that's the case I really don't see any reason to waste time and money prosecuting him.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
They forgot "Part douchebag", which is weird, considering that's the biggest part.

He should do like Banksy: get permission to do something and only pretend it's vandalism.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 23 comments
We hope you like what you see! Please share:

Check out NeatoShop's large selection of T-shirts
Science T-Shirts | Sci-Fi T-Shirts | Fantasy T-Shirts
Funny T-Shirts | Horror T-Shirts | Video Game T-Shirts

Shirts available in sizes S to 10XL:
6XL T-Shirts | 7XL T-Shirts | 8XL T-Shirts
9XL T-Shirts | 10XL T-Shirts
Big & Tall and Curvy Tees are our specialties!
Customization and personalization available.

Specialty T-Shirts:
Anime Big & Tall T-Shirts (3XL to 10XL)

Check out these new sites:

Homes & Hues - Home design, decor and gadgets
Infinite1UP - Video Games
Laughosaurus - Humor & Amazing Videos
Pictojam - Science & Tech
Pop Culturista - Pop Culture
Supa Fluffy - Cute Animals & Pets

Email This Post to a Friend
"Art or Vandalism?"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.
 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More